no gauz, that is a false correlation. the size of the nuclear yield didn't increase (much) it just became more efficient at turning its energy into explosive and thermal radiation as opposed to damaging ionizing radiation

I've mentioned that handguns are necessary for defense, and it's been thrown back in my face as laughable or a power fantasy. The reply is usually along the lines of "that's a job for the police". When talking about concealed carry, many people think that citizens with handguns are a danger to bystanders, not the aggressor.

Handguns are ideal for defense. It's easy to learn how to use them. Unlike knives or martial arts, handguns do not rely on physical prowess.My point: A handgun puts a 110 pound store clerk on equal footing with a 220 pound violent offender.

Of course, you need to know how to use it.

But here's the rub: until the police show up, if I am in danger, I am the most qualified person to defend myself.I can't say enough good things about our police forces, but I wouldn't be surprised if civilians shot less innocent bystanders than police*. I think this is because police officers are often required to carry a gun, whether they practice with it or not. A CC'er is carrying a gun because they want to, and they probably know how to use it. Civilian carriers, if they get involved, are most likely to have been on the scene from the start. Not only does this mean that they can intervene sooner, but they have a clearer picture of what's going on than the police.

*Sadly, America doesn't collect data on this...

So, do 'Gun Free Zones' work?Well, I don't think so. The vast majority of mass shootings take place in 'gun free zones'. Are shooters seeking out these places because they don't want resistance?Are shooters instead going to churches and schools because that's where their target is?Are these places designated 'gun free' because they have historically been places where shootings have taken place?

I don't know. I do know that they aren't working. The only public shooting that has taken place outside of a GFZ since 1950 was when Congresswoman Giffords was shot.

A few years ago, when I was still attending a community college, there was this girl who had terrible luck with men. She had already been stalked by two ex-es, and she was afraid that another guy was following her. Once or twice, she asked me to escort her out to her car, because she thought she saw the guy's pickup.

I've heard of plenty of women who took control of their lives by purchasing a handgun and learning to defend themselves. "Oz" didn't have this option available to her, because she was attending classes at a university.

Somewhat related. A Michigan school took the NRA's advice and hired an armed security guard. He forgot his gun in the student's bathroom "for a few moments" according to the school, but it was long enough for either someone other than him to find it and report it, since it doesn't seem likely he forgot it and instantly went back in to get it, then reported himself. If it was left in there for even a minute, it could very easily have been stolen had a student been going to the bathroom and wanted it. This is the problem of having armed guards at places like schools, as they can and will make mistakes that could have drastic consequences. (young kid finds a gun in the bathroom, then goes and plays with it and accidentally shoots someone)

That's completely right Elab, because of a single isolated incident where something could have maybe happened possibly they should ban all armed guards from school and fire the thousands of men and women that hold the job currently because of this one mans mistake. /sarcasm

I believe in the right to carry handguns and while I at first always think that civilians should not own assault rifles I think of the possibility of the civilian population having to defend itself from either a tyrannical government or from an invading force and how much of a disadvantage they would be facing with only handguns.

When Libya or Egypt rose up against their governments people around the world were cheering for them and praying for their success, but they wouldn't stand a chance armed with ONLY pistols. Civilians in America barely stand a chance against a military if they had rifles, snow balls chance in hell with pistols.

The problem with shootings isn't that the crazy man used a gun to kill people, it's that a crazy man killed people. Fuck the guns, find a way to get the crazy man. We take away the guns and they start using household cleaners to create fire bombs, explosives and IED's are we going to ban bleach from the households as well? Start finding a better way not to stop the thing the crazy man is using to kill people but stop the crazy man.

Martial arts don't necessarily rely on physical prowess. It requires skill, certainly, in the same way an expert archer trains for far longer than an expert gun marksman. However, the main point of many martial arts is not to have power--rather, to channel it. Just going to say that. Otherwise, I'm all for citizens having firearms.

Not everyone has the time nor dedication to take up martial arts and even if they did it's doubtful that the average practitioner would be skilled enough to take on a giant man or one with a knife or at least do it without injury the of being friggin stabbed.

When we think of Martial arts we tend to think of Bruce Lee or Jackie Chane fighting against Jason Statham or Chuck Norris, not Blake at the Tai Kwan Do school down by the Pizza joint who goes to practice after work.

Just making a point. And I totally agree about your point on "the crazy man." We don't take steps to eliminate psychiatric disorders in our population, which are the source of this whole issue. It's also been demonstrated that they don't need guns. There was some guy back in the 80s or 90s I think who would mail bombs to heads of logging corporations because he thought there was a big conspiracy to destroy nature or something.

I DO think that in order to own any type of firearm that you should be required to take a weapons handling class, and mandatory practice shooting at least once every one or two months. (the class at the VERY least)

you can't drive without classes, nor can you hunt without taking a hunter safety course. guns can be a good deterrent for violent crime, especially if lots of people have them, and all of them are required to know how to use them properly.

I have always been a little wary of concealed carry. in general I think it is a good way for weaker people to protect themselves. but accidents can happen.

Sam Harris had a good example he used in a blog post about 2 men beating up a person on the ground. you pull out your gun and order them to stop, but they ignore you. you shoot one of them, but then it turns out that the man on the ground had attacked them with a knife and they had overpowered him and were attempting to get the knife away from him.

a plausable scenario that I am positive has happened at least a few times.

so I am okay with concealed carry, but only if the people who get it have training to not use their weapon improperly (i'm not sure of the actual laws for concealed carry, so it is entirely possible there is already a test or something)